davidw

About

Username
davidw
Joined
Visits
184
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
4,741
Badges
1
Posts
2,184

Reactions

2.4KLike29Dislike465Informative

  • J.P. Morgan trims Apple stock target to $230 citing iPhone & Services weaknesses

    davidwdavidw
    nubus said:
    I would not be surprised if AMZN and GOOG(L) surpasses AAPL sooner or later in terms of the market cap. 

    Tim Cook needs to step down. He makes Apple just.... rotten Apple. 
    18% of Apple profits are linked to the kickback from Google. It seems that deal will go allowing Google to keep $20b and it should see Apple drop further down and Google move up.

    As for Tim Cook. He failed to diversify Apple and to see AI. MSFT: 93% in 3 years. Apple: 44% (the difference looking at 10 years is even more).
    Apple need to get a product person, stop the legal battles, penny-pinching, and infinite iterations. And to go somewhere new and disrupt. Personal health, cars - do something!

    Why is it that so many Apple haters like you, completely miss what Google is paying Apple more than $20B (a year) for? 

    Google is not paying Apple over $20B just to be the default search on Safari. Google is paying a percentage of their ad revenue generated on Apple devices. This includes iPads, iPhones and Macs. It also includes ad revenue generated from their own Chrome browser on Apple devices. Over 50% of Google ad revenue comes from Apple devices.

    With iOS (including iPadOS), anywhere from 30% to 45% of users (depending on who's counting) uses Google Chrome browser. Anywhere from 30% to over 50% of Mac users (also depending on who's counting) use Google Chrome browser. This doesn't mean use exclusively, as most will use more than one browser when surfing the net. I use Safari, Chrome and Firefox on my Macs. With Chrome and Firefox getting the most usage on my older Macs and Safari being the most used on my newer macs. With Google Chrome browser, Apple do not get to decide the default search engine. And yet, Google is still paying Apple a percentage of the ad revenue generated from their own Chrome browser on Apple devices.

    I have not read anywhere whether Google is paying Apple the same 36% of ad revenue generated on their Chrome browser, less than or however unlikely, more than. But that part of the more than $20B that Google pays Apple, is not tied to being made the default on Safari. 

    So once again, Google is not paying Apple over $20B (a year) to be the default search engine on Safari.


    dewmedanoxmuthuk_vanalingam

  • Judge sanctions Apple for blatantly violating 'Fortnite' App Store order

    davidwdavidw
    The solution for Apple seem quite simple. If a developer want to have an app in the Apple App Store where there are advertising and links in the app that allows for any IAP payments outside of Apple iTunes, then Apple will charge those developers $1 per app downloaded per month, with a deal for $10 per  app per year.  (or something to that nature). It will be up to the developers if they want to charge their customers for downloading the app. So a developer can weigh in on whether to have a free app where Apple will get a commission or paid for each downloaded app and hope the users makes enough IAP to bring the cost of having such an app, below what they would had paid in commission.

    This way the developers that are happy with the arrangement of having a free app and paying Apple a commission to handle IAP payments (along with refunds and updates) can still do so. And those that don't want to pay Apple a commission on IAP can do so by paying Apple upfront for having an app in the Apple App store from which they are profiting from using Apple IP.

    Isn't Apple already doing something like this in the EU, with downloads from third party app stores?
    aderutterdavh2pwatto_cobra

  • Phil Schiller recounts concerns over App Store fees for external purchases in hearing

    davidwdavidw
    DAalseth said:
    davidw said:
    DAalseth said:
    When I first heard about Apple getting a cut from sales outside of the AppStore I thought it was wrong and would come back to bite Apple in the ***. 30% to offset the cost of running the store was fine. But once someone loads the app I never agreed with Apple claiming a cut of sales from other people’s stores. That always struck me as abusive.

    If one purchased the digital downloaded version using the  Amazon app, then Apple charged a commission.

     

    And I always thought that was a very bad idea. If I buy a grocery bag from Target, Target doesn’t get a cut if I use it at Fred Meyers. 

    If you buy a grocery bag from anywhere, you own the bag out right. The seller has no say on where or how you can use it. But IP is different. You never own the IP. You are licensed to use it based on the terms of the license. Target don't own any rights to the grocery bag, after you paid for it.

    When you buy a CD, you can not use the CD or any of the songs on it, like you could with the purchase of a grocery bag.The artists of the songs (or copyright owner) deserves to get paid, if you were to make money using their songs. Commercial use of someone else's IP is not covered under "fair use". But you are allowed to sell that original physical CD, even at a profit, under the First Sale Doctrine in Copyright Laws. But you can never use the IP on it to make a profit, without the permission of its owner.

    If Apple (along with Google, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo) did not charge a commission for the purchase of Fortnight Bucks (IAP), when playing Fortnight, using a free app on their devices, then how is Apple suppose to recover the cost of hosting Fortnight on their devices?  Fortnight was one of the most downloaded apps from the Apple App Store and Epic made hundreds of millions of dollars selling Fortnight bucks through that free app. The very bad idea was that of Sweeney, when he violated Apple App Store policies and bypassed Apple commission. Policies he had to agreed to before Fortnight was allowed to be a free app in the Apple App Store. This cost him hundreds of millions of dollars (if not over a billion) by now, by getting kicked out of the Apple App Store. (Not to mention the loss from getting kicked out of the Google Play Store, on Android.)



    muthuk_vanalingamForumPostwatto_cobra

  • Apple Watch blood oxygen ban should never have been put in place, and Apple wants it overt...

    davidwdavidw
    Fred257 said:
    You can get this feature on 30 dollar smartwatches from China. Not sure why this still stands..

    Most likely these China smartwatch companies are paying Masimo a small licensing fee for the use of their patents, as a form of ...... "go away money".

    Apple on the other hand, do not believe on principle, that they should be paying a dime in licensing patents that they think Masimo do not deserve to own or they are not infringing on. Remember, Masimo was willing to settle for what probably would had amounted to pocket change for Apple.

    In the course of this lawsuit, Apple managed to dispute and invalidate most of the 10 patents Masimo claimed to own and were using to sue Apple. Apple won jury verdicts that they were not infringing on nearly all of remaining patents.  And the 1 patent where Apple loss the infringement suit, they loss by just 1 vote. (Where they needed 7 jury votes to prove non-infringement, they only got 6.) It was this one patent infringement that got their Apple Watch banned. What should had happen was that Apple should had had to put up a bond to cover any licensing fee as a result of losing the appeal, instead of having to disable the blood monitoring function in the watch.  

    Masimo don't even have enough brains to be a patent troll. What they should had done was to let Apple continue to use the "infringing" patent that is in dispute. This way, if Apple loses the appeal, Apple will have to pay a large sum for the infringing use of their patents. But if Apple cease using the patent in dispute during the appeal, Masimo will only get any licensing money going forward (if Apple were to lose the appeal.) With the possibility of new tech replacing their patents by the time the appeal process is done.

    My thinking is that Masimo was thinking that Apple would surely settle with some "go away money", rather than to have their Apple Watch banned in the US. 
    SmittyWronn

  • Latest App Store crypto lawsuit tries to blame Apple for bad user decisions

    davidwdavidw
    How could she install it if it wasn’t a link to the legitimate version? She is in the US.

    There was no "illegitimate" version. The version in the Apple App and Google Play app stores is the one that turned out to be the scam version. But that doesn't mean that Swiftcrypt was doing anything illegal, that Apple or Google should had known about, before or at the time the Swiftcrypt app was available in their app stores. After 10's of thousands of downloads, there were no reports of users losing their crypto currency, that Apple or Google could had used as a warning. 

    If there was a legitimate version of a Swiftcrypt app and some how Apple allowed a pirated or fake version or a version with a very similar name and logo into their app store, then I can see how Apple could be held responsible for any monetary loss by users installing the "illegitimate" version from the Apple App Store. 

    Without any warning signs, there's no way for Apple to know that Swiftcrypt would turn out to be an app that would end up scamming users out of their  crypto currency. If Apple could predict that, then they would not had allow Epic Games Fortnight in their app store because as it turned out, Epic Games also scammed Fortnight players out of their money.


    Apple can't win. Apple for the longest time did not allow any crypto currency apps in their app store. And people complained about how Apple was abusing their App Store "monopoly" by not allowing third party app stores and side loading, so iPhones users that wants to use crytpo currency apps can install them. But it seems after high demand from their users Apple had a change of heart and started allowing crypto currency apps in their App Store and this is their reward.


    To quote Robert Maccall (played by Denzell Washington) from The Equalizer ........ "you pray for rain, you gotta deal with the mud too." 




    baconstang

  • Apple accused of cashing in as UK battles phone theft surge

    davidwdavidw
    Blaming Apple and Google for the rise in mobile phone thefts is like blaming the auto makers for the rise in catalytic converters thefts.

    Here in the SF Bay Area, catalytic converter thefts was one of the highest in the nation but have drop by over 50% once local law enforcement cracked down on metal recyclers paying for stolen converters and investigations that led to organized crime rings that specialized in buying stolen converters. This did more to lower catalytic converter thefts than any auto maker could had done by making converters harder to steal. 



    It's the same with mobile phones. The vast majority of mobile phones thieves (the ones that steals a phone off a person) are not the ones getting $200 to $500 per stolen phone. Most of them would be lucky to get $50 or are willing to settle for a carton of cigarettes or a baggie of weed, for their effort to steal one. So long as that is all that most phone thieves will settle for, no amount of anti-theft prevention features by Apple or Google will lower mobile phone thefts by much. In most phone theft cases that involves the phone being stolen off a person, it's not the actual thieves that got more than $100 for sending their stolen phone overseas to a contact or selling its parts.

    What's needed is for law enforcement to put more effort into catching the organize crime rings and fencing operations that are responsible for the small incentives offered to small time thieves for stolen mobile phones. Which is why no amount of anti-theft prevention features by Apple and Google will significantly lower the theft rate. The small time thieves couldn't care less if Apple and Google made it easier (than it already is) to brick a stolen phone, so long as they still get their $50 from the organized crime rings or fencing operations, that are buying stolen phones for a small fraction of what they can get for one overseas or for parts or mining its data.


    dewmeGinseng108roundaboutnowwatto_cobra

  • FTC 'Click to Cancel' rule that was annoying some services cancelled by the courts

    davidwdavidw
    Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't Apple "one click to cancel" feature, only with subscriptions paid for using one's iTunes account (Apple account) and not necessarily with any subscription apps in the Apple App Store?  Apple have no way to force developers to have "one click to cancel" with their apps in the Apple App store, when payment is done using the developers own payment systems, on their own websites. There, Apple have no way of knowing what payment method (CC, Debit, gift card, PayPal, Bitcoin, etc.) the subscribers used for payment.

    If I recall, it's Apple that is doing the actual stop payment when payment is done using an iTunes account, no matter what payment method was used in the account (CC, Debit, gift card, cash balance, etc.) And developers have to agree to this if they want their apps in the Apple App Store. If the payment is not made using iTunes account, then the subscribers would have to log on to their account on the developers (publishers) websites to cancel from there or deal with their CC, bank, PayPal, etc. to stop payment. (This is where the FTC "one click to cancel" rule would had helped Apple App Store customers.)

    The same is true for refunds. If an app purchaser (that paid for an app with their iTunes account) wants a refund, Apple will do the refunding immediately and then go after the developer to get paid back. Usually by deducting the cost of the refund directly from the developers account. Which is one of the reasons why payment to developers for purchases are held in the developers Apple account for up to 21 days, before they get to transfer it to their own accounts. (Like how a bank will hold payment for a check until it clears.) 
    ronntiredskillsdanox

  • Epic Games is annoyed UK regulator isn't working harder to enable third-party app stores

    davidwdavidw
    There's no third party app stores allowed in the US, but yet Fortnight is once again available in the Apple App Store. I'm sure it's not for charity on Sweeney part. So if Loony Tune Sweeney don't want to make Fortnight available in the UK (on iOS). it's on him. Trying to blame Fortnight not being in the UK (on iOS) on Apple or the UK CMA, is plain stupid.

    Fortnight on iOS still made Epic Games hundreds of millions of dollars (if not over a billion dollars) when it was in the Apple App Store paying Apple's commission and  before Sweeney stupid move to violate his Apple App Store contract, that got Fortnight kicked out. It's one thing for Sweeney to be greedy and not want to pay Apple their due commission in order to make more profit. But it's just plain stupid for Sweeney to not want to greatly profit at all from selling virtual items with an over 90% margin (not counting scamming his customers), even if he has to pay the commission. Loony Tune Sweeney is the classic case that proves ........ you can't fix stupid. 
    danoxtiredskillswilliamlondonjem101

  • Apple still effectively blocks rival browser engines on iOS despite EU order

    davidwdavidw
    How does a competing "browser engine" help me as a consumer when all of the value-added benefits of competing browsers is the rest of the stuff?

    Is it the extension support in Firefox? Extensions won't work in Firefox on iOS when WebKit is the browser engine? That seems like a stretch.

    Competition is good, but this seems like an odd battle. For years. Firefox had a sub-standard (slow and bloated) browser on Macs. Where was the wolf cry over that disconnect?

    There's nothing inherently wrong with WebKit. It is a near-equal engine alongside the other majors. So what are the major issues at stake?
    There is the obvious. We actually don’t know if WebKit is the best on iOS because nothing is allowed to compete with it.  For all we know another engine could run circles around it. 

    We all certainly understood what a better browser meant when Safari came out and we could dump I.E.  As a consumer I benefited from that competition. The same thing can’t happen on iOS. 

    But let's be realistic here. There are no "browser developers" that wants to develop another "browser engine" that competes with Blink, WebKit or Gecko. What these so call browser developers, that are bitching about no browser engine competition on iOS, want to do is to develop an iOS browser that uses the Blink browser engine.

    If there are browser engine developers that wants to develop a competing browser engine to WebKit on iOS, then where are their browser engines on Android? Nearly 100% of  the over dozen of different browsers on Android, uses Blink. Why in the name of Hell is the EU so concern about competition in the "browser engine" market on iOS, when there is no browser engine competition on Android? Not even Microsoft wants to develop their own browser engine for Edge (on Windows). They switched to Blink. There is no way that a browser engine can succeed by just being on iOS. It would also have to be on Android, before website developers develop for it. And they would rather not have to, just so that the  consumers have more choices of browser engines. Most consumers only care about the choice in browsers. 


    On MacOS, we have mainly WebKit, Blink and Gecko (FireFox). Blink don't come close to "running circles" around Safari or even FireFox, on MacOS. So far, most Mac users prefers Safari. But I imagine that if one was using an Android phone, they might prefer Chrome. Not because Blink runs circles around Safari but because Chrome is the browser Android phone owners are use to using. The same with Chrome on iOS. Even though iOS Chrome uses WebKit, PC users rather use Chrome on their iPhones because it's what they are use to using on their Windows PC. For the average consumers, it makes no real difference. Each has its advantages, along with its disadvantages. Blink enjoy advantages on Android, the same way WebKit enjoy advantages on iOS (and MacOS), vertical integration with the OS, as both (engine and OS) are developed by the same company. It is very hard for any competing browser engine to overcome those "vertical integrated" advantages. (Of course in the EU, they could force Apple to give those "vertical integrated"  advantages to competing browser engines.)

    So far, from what i have read, the biggest crybaby about not being able to develop a Blink browser on iOS is Meta. From what I understand, what Meta want to do is to put a browser inside their Facebook app, so users don't have to exit their Facebook app to get on the internet. Why? Because the browser inside their app would still be consider "first party" and not subject to Apple ATT.  They can data mine the Hell out of it, without informing their users. (And Spotify might be thinking along the same line, which is why the EU might be so concern about "browser engine" competition on iOS.) And Meta wants to use Blink because it offers less user privacy and more ways to mine users data. (Though there might be other technical advantages.) After all Blink was developed by Google, as a fork of WebKit.

    I think you failed to understand why Mac users "dumped" IE for Safari. It was mainly because Safari browser engine was open source while IE had a proprietary MS engine. IE for Macs even had a different browser engine than IE for Windows. Website developers got tire of MS proprietary shit that kept changing with little notice and no choice but to comply as IE had an over 90% market share at the time. Mac users "dumping" IE for Safari came at the same time PC users were dumping IE for Mozilla FireFox. Developers made the difference by jumping at the opportunity to develop for browser engines that were open source.   


    danox

  • Apple Watch blood oxygen ban should never have been put in place, and Apple wants it overt...

    davidwdavidw
    davidw said:

    Most likely these China smartwatch companies are paying Masimo a small licensing fee for the use of their patents, as a form of ...... "go away money".

    I guarantee that the Chinese companies aren’t paying Masimo a single cent, since Masimo has no way to sue them in China to stop them.

    Your guarantee is worthless.

    This from 2002, but it shows that even back then,  Masimo is not ignoring the China market.


    >Irvine, California, December 19, 2002, Masimo, the innovator of motion and low perfusion-tolerant pulse oximetry technology, announced today that it has formed a strategic alliance with leading Chinese medical device manufacturer, Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics Co., Ltd. (Mindray) of Shenzhen, China. Mindray, the largest domestic manufacturer of patient monitoring products in China, will incorporate Masimo SET® motion and low perfusion tolerant pulse oximetry as its primary pulse oximetry technology for its patient monitoring products.<




    tiredskillsronn